Effect of variable‐stiffness walking shoes on knee adduction moment, pain, and function in subjects with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis after 1 year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the load-modifying and clinical efficacy of variable-stiffness shoes after 12 months in subjects with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Subjects who completed a prior 6-month study were asked to wear their assigned constant-stiffness control or variable-stiffness intervention shoes during the remainder of the study. Changes in peak knee adduction moment, total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), and WOMAC pain scores were assessed. Seventy-nine subjects were enrolled, and 55 completed the trial. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the variable-stiffness shoes reduced the within-day peak knee adduction moment (-5.5%, p < 0.001) in the intervention subjects, while the constant-stiffness shoes increased the peak knee adduction moment in the control subjects (+3.1%, p = 0.015) at the 12-month visit. WOMAC pain and total scores for the intervention group were significantly reduced from baseline to 12 months (-32%, p = 0.002 and -35%, p = 0.007, respectively). The control group had a reduction of 27% in WOMAC pain score (p = 0.04) and no significant reduction in total WOMAC score. Reductions in WOMAC pain and total scores were similar between groups (p = 0.8 and p = 0.47, respectively). In the intervention group, reductions in adduction moment were related to improvements in pain and function (R(2) = 0.11, p = 0.04). Analysis by disease severity revealed greater efficacy in adduction moment reduction in the less severe intervention group. While the long-term effects of the intervention shoes on pain and function did not differ from control, the data suggest wearing the intervention shoe reduces the within-day adduction moment after long-term wear, and thus should reduce loading on the affected medial compartment of the knee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".